What's the opinion of the Cessna 175? looks a lot like a 172... continental 300... seem to be a lot of nice ones on the market under 30K

I'm hoping to round up 4-5 people and buy a plane here sometime in 6mo - 1yr

They are actually a great old aircraft, using the GO-300-D which has a bad reputation of not making TBO with a very expensive gear box to overhaul along with the engine.

When run IAW the POH they will serve well and the engine and gear box will reach TBO. new cylinders and engine parts are readily available, thru after market parts suppliers

They are a C-172 fuselage with a modified C-180 wing, 40 degree manual flaps, gross weigh is increased because of more horses under the hood. plus when run at cruise at 2800 RPM the prop is turning 2100 RPM which makes the quietest cabin ever made by Cessna in the 100 series.

They are actually a great old aircraft, using the GO-300-D which has a bad reputation of not making TBO with a very expensive gear box to overhaul along with the engine.

When run IAW the POH they will serve well

That's the ticket. Fine airplane as long as it's run by the book, which is rather different than what most people learned with direct drive engines. Only problem buying one is knowing how it was run before you got it. Ask the owner how to run it, and if that doesn't match the book, walk away. BTW there's an STC to replace the original engine with a 180HP Lyc O-360, and that's a really easy engine to run and one which is well-known for reliability and durability.

That's the ticket. Fine airplane as long as it's run by the book, which is rather different than what most people learned with direct drive engines. Only problem buying one is knowing how it was run before you got it. Ask the owner how to run it, and if that doesn't match the book, walk away. BTW there's an STC to replace the original engine with a 180HP Lyc O-360, and that's a really easy engine to run and one which is well-known for reliability and durability.

Well that's good as far as it goes, you'd best get an A&P well versed in GO-300-D gear box, to have a look before making a payment.

The upgrade you mentioned is a great upgrade, when completed that aircraft will go places and carry more than a 182 or a Maule M4-235 can.

What is the problem with folks running them poorly? Is it an issue with RPM ?

I thought you'd never ask

back when they were new the old radial pilots that traded their old aircraft in on them had never seen an aircraft that should be run 3250 RPM for take off, so they would run the GO-300-D the same way they ran the 0-300-D and that resulted in lugging the engine and caused much damage to the cylinders / cases by detonation. Simply put, the pistons could not travel down the cylinder bore fast enough to relieve the combustion pressures, and the resulting pressures were beyond what the cylinders were designed to with stand.

so they got to be known as a POS simply because the pilot/owners would not fly them correctly.

The owner goes to all the back woods fly-ins like Johnson Creek ID, and when he does his hangar neighbor (our Maule operator) has him carry some of his camp gear, because the maule is maxed out, and it still gets off quicker than the Maule M4-235.

...
The upgrade you mentioned is a great upgrade, when completed that aircraft will go places and carry more than a 182 or a Maule M4-235 can.

Tom, a few quetions:
1) If you put the O-360 in the 175 does that get rid of the gear box and then it gets flown like anyother 180 hp engine?

2) Does putting in the O-360 then increast the TBO from 1200 hrs to 2000hrs? I've looked at 175s but my big concern is that the TBO is only 1200 and a mid time engine in anything else is runout on a 175. The concern for me was buying one with 600 hrs on it and not knowing how the previous owner flew it.

3) I'd think that putting in the O-360 would essentially make it a 180hp 172. What you say would refute that. How is it more than a 172 with the 180hp

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ron Levy

No way 180HP will haul more than 230HP, but it will improve the airplane's performance a bit and provide a more familiar engine for your mechanic at the expense of a little less smooth operation.

Tom, a few quetions:
1) If you put the O-360 in the 175 does that get rid of the gear box and then it gets flown like anyother 180 hp engine?

Why not? but remember it is a constant speed prop, with all the considerations of the type.

2) Does putting in the O-360 then increast the TBO from 1200 hrs to 2000hrs? I've looked at 175s but my big concern is that the TBO is only 1200 and a mid time engine in anything else is runout on a 175. The concern for me was buying one with 600 hrs on it and not knowing how the previous owner flew it.

Engine TBO is Engine TBO, it has nothing to do with the aircraft.

3) I'd think that putting in the O-360 would essentially make it a 180hp 172. What you say would refute that. How is it more than a 172 with the 180hp

Pretty much true, but remember the 175 has a different wing, manual 40 degree flaps, and a heavier gross load.

This was my thinking but it is just an assumption.

not quite true, the 2 aircraft are different designs the Maule has a much shorter wing, and requires more speed to life off than the modified 175 wing with a stall cuff and VGs.
I've watched the 2 owners compete with each other, the 175 configured the way it is beats the M4-235 every time.

C-175 first came out for the 1958 model year. It got the swept tail in 1960 (175A), along with an optional equipment package called "Skylark". For 1962 (C-175C) cowl flaps and a constant-speed propeller were added (175s had fixed-pitch props before 1962).

As Tom mentioned, the 1963 model was not called "175" at all. Rather, the 175C engine, prop, cowl flaps and type certificate were married to the 172D's redesigned "Omni-Vision" fuselage. The result was integrated into the 172 line and called P172D "Skyhawk Powermatic." Only about 65 were built that year, after which the GO-300 engine was retired.

The later R172K "Hawk XP" and 172RG "Cutlass RG" were built under the 175's type certificate.

Other 175 trivia ... The 175 prototype was first flown with an experimental geared, four-cylinder Continental GO-315 -- quickly rejected as a "monster" by the test pilots. Then they tried a six-cylinder, fuel-injected GIO-300, but its primitive mechanical fuel metering system did not work well with a fixed-pitch prop.

Here's another 175. Not sure what engine is in it, but in addition to the tailwheel conversion it has a c/s prop, leading-edge cuff and VGs. This is the only one I've seen with the side window mod, that at first glance makes it hard to tell from a C-180. A close look at the tailfeathers gives it away as a 175.

Quote:

but remember the 175 has a different wing

As far as I know the differences are internal and structural only; outside and aerodynamically it's just like a 172 wing.

The 300s always been known to be very smooth engines... But I've always wondered if it's not mostly due to the prop rpm beeing so low... or is it really the engine itself...? I'd love to hear it on a test bed to compare...